Free Traffic Legal Advice

Good morning, can anyone please guide me, I do not know how to use this forum properly, to delete/amend the attachments.
I am in URGENT need of assistant in how to deal with these two claims, I can not Afford them.

Thanks.

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant
asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no
debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately
disclose any comprehensible cause of action.

2. The Defendant inadvertently selected "defend part of the
claim" on the Acknowledgment of Service via MCOL. For the
avoidance of doubt, this Defence disputes the entirety of the
claim pursuant to CPR 15.2 and the overriding objective.

3. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim
(PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made
against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply
with CPR 16.4.

4. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the
PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16.7.3(1);

(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or
clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which
is/are relied on;

(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason(s) why the
Claimant asserts the Defendant has breached the contract(s);

(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly
where the breach occurred, the exact time of alleged breach and
duration of parking prior to the charge;

(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is
calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest,
damages or other charges;

(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(g) The PoC do not state whether the Defendant is sued as driver
or keeper. The Claimant cannot plead both without specificity.

5. Courts have previously struck out similar claims of their own
initiative for failure to comply with CPR 16.4, where the PoC
failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain
the alleged breach with sufficient clarity. In comparable cases,
judges have found that requiring case management steps in
low-value claims is disproportionate and contrary to the
overriding objective.

6. The Defendant submits the same reasoning applies and invites
the court to strike out the claim for breach of CPR 16.4.

Draft Order:

Of the court’s own initiative and upon reading the claim and
defence.

AND the court being of the view that the particulars do not
comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because:

(a) They do not set out the exact wording of the clause(s)
relied on; and

(b) They do not adequately explain the alleged breach.

AND the Claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) by
serving separate detailed particulars pursuant to
CPR PD 7C.5.2(2) but failed to do so.

AND the claim being of modest value, it is disproportionate and
not in accordance with the overriding objective to require
further case management, amended pleadings or allocation.

ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission for either party to apply to vary, set aside or
stay this Order by application within 5 days of service.